Available online: 04 Apr Full terms and conditions of use:

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia] On: 08 December 2011, At: 11:10 Publisher: Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Cognition & Emotion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Arrogant or self-confident? The use of contextual knowledge to differentiate hubristic and authentic pride from a single nonverbal expression Jessica L. Tracy a & Christine Prehn a a Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Available online: 04 Apr 2011 To cite this article: Jessica L. Tracy & Christine Prehn (2011): Arrogant or self-confident? The use of contextual knowledge to differentiate hubristic and authentic pride from a single nonverbal expression, Cognition & Emotion, DOI: / To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 COGNITION AND EMOTION 0000, 00 (0), 111 Arrogant or self-confident? The use of contextual knowledge to differentiate hubristic and authentic pride from a single nonverbal expression Jessica L. Tracy and Christine Prehn Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Two studies tested whether observers could differentiate between two facets of pride*authentic and hubristic*on the basis of a single prototypical pride nonverbal expression combined with relevant contextual information. In Study 1, participants viewed targets displaying posed pride expressions in response to success, while causal attributions for the success (target s effort vs. ability) and the source of this information (target vs. omniscient narrator conveying objective fact) were varied. Study 2 used a similar method, but attribution information came from both the target and an omniscient narrator; the congruence of these attributions was varied. Across studies, participants tended to label expressions as authentic pride, but were relatively more likely to label them as hubristic pride when (a) contextual information indicated that targets were arrogant and (b) no mitigating information about the target s potential value as a hard-working group member (i.e., that success was actually due to effort) was presented. Keywords: Authentic pride; Hubristic pride; Emotion recognition; Context; Causal attributions. One s emotional response to a public success may be as important in shaping others judgements as the success itself. Imagine experiencing an achievement in a socially valued domain, such as winning a competition, or making an intelligent comment at a meeting. Your emotional response is likely to include feelings of pride, and you may have a reflexive tendency to show the pride nonverbal expression. On the one hand, this display will alert observers to your success, and inform them that you deserve high status (Tiedens, Ellsworth, & Mesquita, 2000; Shariff & Tracy, 2009). On the other hand, that same display could promote perceptions of arrogance, leading observers to dislike you and root against your future success. Indeed, the dual-faceted nature of pride*it is associated with two distinct components, labelled authentic and hubristic, with the former promoting social acceptance and the latter promoting social rejection (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Lewis, 2000; Tracy, Cheng, Robins, & Trzesniewski, 2009; Tracy & Robins, 2007a)*presents a quandary for successful individuals. How to reap the benefits of a nonverbal expression that confers Correspondence should be addressed to: Jessica L. Tracy, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. jltracy@psych.ubc.ca We wish to acknowledge the generous support of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Standard Research Grant # , and a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award [CI-SCH-01862(07-1)]. # 2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business DOI: /

3 TRACY AND PREHN high status, without simultaneously sowing the seeds of rejection? Two facets, one expression Recent research suggests that pride is conceptualised and experienced as two distinct facets. The first, labelled authentic pride, is associated with feelings of confidence, self-worth, and productivity, and positively related to a socially desirable personality profile characterised by extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and high implicit and explicit self-esteem. The second pride facet, labelled hubristic pride, 1 is characterised by egotism and arrogance, and positively associated with disagreeableness, aggression, low implicit self-esteem, and shame (Tracy & Robins, 2007a; Tracy et al., 2009). A growing body of research suggests that pride, through its expression, experience, and motivational impact on behaviour, functions to promote social status, and may have evolved to serve this purpose (Cheng et al., 2010; Shariff & Tracy, 2009; Tiedens et al., 2000; Williams & DeSteno, 2009). Correspondingly, each facet of pride may function to promote a distinct behavioural repertoire for attaining status. Henrich and Gil-White (2001) have argued for a distinction between status earned through hard work, the demonstration and sharing of socially valued skills, and resultant respect from others (i.e., prestige); and status forcibly taken by intimidation, aggression, and others resultant fear (i.e., dominance). Recent studies have found that trait authentic pride is uniquely associated with the attainment of the skill-based status, prestige, whereas trait hubristic pride is uniquely associated with the attainment of the force-based status, dominance (Cheng et al., 2010). Thus, although both pride facets serve the general function of promoting social status, authentic pride may motivate the prosocial suite of behaviours oriented toward attaining others respect and liking*including hard work, persistence, goal accomplishment, and generosity; whereas hubristic pride may motivate the more antisocial suite of behaviours oriented toward attaining dominance*including arrogance, overconfidence, aggression, and hostility (Cheng et al., 2010; Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng, 2010). Despite this distinction in the subjective feelings, personality traits, and behavioural tendencies associated with the two pride facets, studies suggest that there is only one pride nonverbal expression, which is reliably recognised as conveying both facets (Tracy & Robins, 2007b). This display, which includes a small smile, expanded posture, head tilted slightly back, and arms extended out from the body either akimbo with hands on hips or raised above the head with hands in fists (see Figure 1), is cross-culturally recognised and displayed, and may be a universal human response to success (Lewis, Alessandri, & Sullivan, 1992; Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008; Tracy & Robins, 2008a). Consistent with pride s statusenhancing function, the pride nonverbal expression automatically sends an implicit message of high social status (Shariff & Tracy, 2009), and it does so across cultures, including within a geographically and culturally isolated traditional small-scale society in Fiji, suggesting that the expression may be a universal status signal (Tracy, Shariff, Zhao, & Henrich, 2011). Thus, humans may have an evolved capacity to rapidly recognise pride from its display and automatically determine that the expresser deserves high status. Soon afterward, observers may use additional cognitive processing to make a secondary judgement about whether the display conveys hubristic or authentic pride, and thus whether the expresser is likely to be a dominant individual who should be feared and avoided or a prestigious individual who should be respected and copied. This judgement is likely made on the basis of relevant contextual 1 In previous research, we labelled the first facet authentic to emphasise that it is based on actual accomplishments and accompanied by genuine feelings of self-worth (Tracy & Robins, 2007a). However, as we noted at the time, this label should not be taken to imply that hubristic pride is not an authentic emotional experience. Rather, the elicitors of hubristic pride may be more loosely tied to actual accomplishments, and involve a self-evaluative process that reflects a less authentic sense of self (e.g., distorted and self-aggrandised self-views); yet, both facets are likely to be equally authentic (i.e., real ) emotional experiences. 2 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0)

4 PRIDE IN CONTEXT information. Indeed, social functional accounts of emotions argue that emotions that evolved to serve a general function (e.g., boosting social status) can have distinct effects (e.g., promoting perceptions of prestige vs. dominance) depending on the context in which they are experienced and displayed (Fischer & Manstead, 2008). Which context cues matter? Studies have shown that the determination of whether an individual experiences authentic or hubristic pride in response to success is largely based on how the individual appraises the success, rather than the specific cause of the success. Both facets are elicited by work/school, athletic, relationship, and personal successes; what differentiates the two is the proud individual s attribution for the cause of the success (Tracy & Robins, 2007a). For either facet to occur, positive events must be appraised as relevant to the individual s goals for his/her identity, and caused by something internal to the individual (i.e., the self; Lazarus, 1991; Lewis, 2000; Roseman, 1991; Tracy & Robins, 2004; Weiner, 1986). Subsequent attributions about the stability and controllability of these internal causes partly determine which facet of pride is experienced. Specifically, attributions to internal, unstable, controllable causes (e.g., effort) are more likely to elicit authentic pride, whereas attributions to internal but stable, uncontrollable causes (e.g., ability) are more likely to elicit hubristic pride (Hareli, Weiner, & Yee, 2006; Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989; Tracy & Robins, 2007a; Weiner, 1986). Findings supporting this distinction emerged from a correlational study, where trait authentic and hubristic pride showed divergent relations with chronic attributional styles; an experiment that manipulated the relevant attributions and assessed resultant emotions; and an experiment that manipulated emotions and assessed casual attributions made for the emotion-eliciting events (Tracy & Robins, 2007a). However, studies have not examined whether these causal attributions are used by observers as a source of information to help disambiguate a target s pride expression. If observers use information about the cause of a pride-expresser s success to determine which facet of pride is being displayed, they are likely to also consider the source from which this information is derived*that is, whether causal attributions for the success represent the proud target s own appraisal of the situation, or the actual cause. Research suggests that the appearance of modesty and generosity promote a prestigious reputation, whereas the appearance of arrogance promotes perceptions of dominance (Cheng et al., 2010; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). Thus, causal attributions that make a proud individual appear modest, such as attributing one s own success to effort, may promote perceptions of authentic pride, whereas attributions that make the individual seem arrogant, such attributing one s success to stable abilities like intelligence or talent, may promote perceptions of hubristic pride (Hareli et al., 2006); the appearance of modesty versus arrogance may be one reason for the previously found attribution distinction between the two facets. However, also from the perspective of the dominance/prestige account, if attribution information is gleaned from a more objective source, both ability and effort attributions could lead to perceptions of authentic pride, because both attributions suggest that the proud individual is competent and possesses skills, abilities, and know-how that others would benefit from following and copying (i.e., by granting prestige). As long as the proud individual is willing to share his/ her knowledge, he/she may well merit prestige. An interesting question arises for situations where information is available about both the actual cause of the success and the target s own attribution. A proud individual whose success is in fact due to his/her ability, who can maintain the appearance of modesty by attributing it (incorrectly or deceptively) to effort, may be perceived as displaying authentic pride, given that observers would benefit by granting prestige to a talented group member who demonstrates modesty. In contrast, if this same individual attributes his/her success to ability, he/she may be perceived as arrogant*even if that attribution is accurate* and, even though he/she may possess skills that COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0) 3

5 TRACY AND PREHN would benefit the group, observers may assume that these would not be generously shared by a seemingly arrogant expresser. Less clear is what would happen in cases where proud targets attribute their success to ability while observers know the actual cause to be effort. On the one hand, this combination should increase perceptions of arrogance*targets here would be claiming abilities they do not necessarily have*and promote perceptions of hubristic pride. On the other hand, from the dominance/prestige account, the knowledge that an individual is actually a hard worker who is likely to contribute to the group (as indicated by his/her effort-based success) might be weighted more heavily than the target s arrogance, especially given evidence that highly prestigious leaders can display some arrogance yet maintain prestige if they demonstrate clear value to the group (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). In sum, when interpreting a pride expression, observers are likely to utilise available attribution information about the cause of the proud individual s success, and also take into account the source of this information. It is not clear, however, precisely how information derived from the target and from more objective sources would interact to shape judgements. The present research We examined the impact of these attributionbased context cues on observers judgements of whether a given pride expression conveyed authentic or hubristic pride. In Study 1, we tested whether causal attributions for a pride-displaying target s success influenced judgements about which facet of pride was conveyed by the expression; we also tested whether the impact of attributions varied depending on the source of the information (i.e., whether it was the target s own attribution, or an attribution made by an omniscient narrator, representing the actual cause of the success). In Study 2, we examined the impact of attributions on pride judgements when both sources of information*target s and omniscient narrator s*were available, and whether judgements differed when the two sources converged versus diverged. Together, these studies are the first to examine whether observers can differentiate authentic and hubristic pride from the same nonverbal expression when contextual information is available, and, if so, which contextual cues facilitate these judgements. STUDY 1 Study 1 tested whether the causal attribution made for a pride-displaying target s success whether it was caused by something internal, stable, and uncontrollable about the target (i.e., ability) or something internal, unstable, and controllable about the target (i.e., effort)*influenced judgements of the target s pride expression (i.e., whether it was identified as authentic or hubristic). We also tested whether the impact of these varying attributions on pride judgements depended on their source: whether they represented the target s own opinion, or objective fact. Method Participants and procedure. Eighty Canadian undergraduates (55% female) participated in a 2 (Causal Attribution: ability vs. effort) 2 (Source of Attribution Information: target vs. objective) between-participants experiment, in exchange for a candy bar. Target gender and success domain (i.e., academic or athletic) were also varied between subjects, to control for the possibility of these variables influencing results. 2 All participants viewed a single image (see Figure 1) and were told, Please choose which of the following options best describes the way that Joe [Hillary] seems to be feeling. They then chose one of the following three response options: (1) accomplished, achieving, confident, fulfilled, 2 We did not test for gender effects, because we lacked sufficient statistical power to perform the necessary tests to fully interpret any significant results (e.g., any participant gender effects would be difficult to interpret without testing for target gender effects and participanttarget interactions.). There were no effects of success domain in either study. 4 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0)

6 PRIDE IN CONTEXT Figure 1. Selected stimuli from Study 1. The top half of the figure shows the male target in the target-as-source, effort attribution, academic-domain condition. The bottom half of the Figure shows the female target in the objective-fact-as-source, ability attribution, athletic-domain condition. productive, has self-worth, successful (i.e., authentic pride); (2) arrogant, conceited, egotistical, pompous, smug, snobbish, stuck-up (i.e., hubristic pride); or (3) neither of these is correct. The words used to define each pride facet were the seven items that constitute the previously validated Authentic and Hubristic Pride Scales; these scales were derived from multiple factor analyses of ratings of words characterising trait and state pride experiences (see Tracy & Robins, 2007a). Materials. Stimuli were 5ƒ5.5ƒ laminated photographs accompanied by 12 sentences of contextual information (see Figure 1). Photos depicted a Caucasian female or male target posing a prototypical pride expression, taken from the UC Davis Set of Emotion Expressions (UCD- SEE; Tracy, Robins, & Schriber, 2009). Below each photo was a caption providing contextual information indicating that the target had experienced a success (e.g., Joe [Hillary] just won a tennis match [did very well on an exam] ). Additional attribution information about the cause of the success was provided either as a second sentence in the same caption (i.e., Joe [Hillary] won because... ), for the objective-fact condition; or in a quotation bubble representing the target s own thoughts (e.g., I won because... ), for the target-as-source condition. We used a caption below the photo to convey attribution information in the objective-source condition because we assumed that captions would be perceived as coming from an omniscient narrator, and thus representing the objective truth. The specific causal attributions provided also varied, such that participants in the effort condition were informed that: Joe [Hillary/I] won because he [she/i] worked hard, and 3 A one-tailed test was justified here, given the clear, unidirectional prediction based on previous research. COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0) 5

7 TRACY AND PREHN participants in the ability condition were informed that: Joe [Hillary/I] won because he s [she s/i m] talented. Results and discussion We first excluded all neither of these is correct responses (5%), to analyse results only for those participants who accurately identified the expression as one facet of pride or the other. Across conditions, the pride expression was significantly more likely to be identified as authentic (63%) than hubristic pride (37%), pb.05, based on the binomial test with chance responding set at 50%. However, these perceptions varied across conditions. There was no main effect of Attribution, t(74) 0.64, ns, nor of Source, t(74) 0.77, ns, but an Attribution Source interaction emerged, F(1, 72) 4.21, pb.05 (see Figure 2), indicating that when the source was objective, attribution had no effect on pride judgements, t(35) 1.05, ns; participants tended to label the expression as authentic pride regardless of whether the success was due to effort (60% Figure 2. Frequency of authentic pride, rather than hubristic pride, judgements, as a function of attribution (effort vs. ability) and the source of these attributions (target or objective fact), Study 1. N 80; *pb.05, one-tailed. authentic pride) or ability (76%). However, when the target was the source, attribution had a significant effect, with effort attributions leading to relatively more frequent authentic pride judgements (74%), and ability attributions leading to relatively more frequent hubristic pride judgements (55%), t(37) 1.85, pb.05, one-tailed. 3 Thus, consistent with predictions, both attributions and the source of these attributions contributed to judgements about whether a given pride expression conveys authentic or hubristic pride. Specifically, when attributions were presented in a caption conveying the objective truth, observers tended to judge the target s expression as authentic pride, regardless of whether the success was due to the target s effort or ability. Although previous research suggests that ability attributions should lead to hubristic pride judgements, observers were, apparently, largely unwilling to label a successful target as showing hubristic pride without evidence of arrogance. This is consistent with our expectation that even an individual whose success is due to stable abilities might be a modest and competent prosocial leader who deserves prestige; indeed, stable abilities, such as intelligence, can promote the display of knowledge or skills, which could, in turn, be learned and copied by others. In contrast, when proud targets attributed their success to ability*suggesting arrogance (Hareli et al., 2006)*the expression was more likely to be perceived as hubristic. It is noteworthy, though, that even in this condition, the effect size was fairly small; 45% of participants still labelled the expression as authentic pride. This divided response may be due to a hesitation to label an expression as hubristic when the actual cause of the success is unclear. In sum, Study 1 suggests that while observers made pride judgements largely on the basis of targets apparent arrogance or modesty, in cases where targets own attributions were not available, judgements were based more on targets potential to contribute to the group, either through hard work or sharing their abilities with others. This interpretation assumes, however, that observers 3 A one-tailed test was justified here, given the clear, unidirectional prediction based on previous research. 6 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0)

8 PRIDE IN CONTEXT presumed modesty and potential generosity in targets whose success was due to ability. It is thus unclear how these expressions would be judged if targets were seen making arrogant (or modest) attributions alongside objectively based attribution information. Study 2 addressed this issue. STUDY 2 In Study 2 we provided participants with attribution information from both an omniscient narrator and the proud target, and manipulated whether these two sources agreed or disagreed. Method Participants and procedure. Eighty-one Canadian undergraduates (60% female) participated in a 2 (Objective Attribution: effort vs. ability) 2 (Target Congruence: congruent vs. incongruent) between-subjects experiment in exchange for a candy bar. Target gender and success domain (i.e., academic vs. athletic) were varied between subjects, again to control for possible effects of these variables (see Footnote 2). Participants completed the same procedures as in Study 1. Materials. The stimuli used in Study 1 were modified such that all images included both a caption indicating the actual cause of the success and a quotation bubble indicating the target s own attribution. These two sources either converged (to indicate the target s ability or effort as the cause of his/her success) or diverged (one indicating ability, and the other effort). Results and discussion We again first excluded neither of these is correct responses (6%). Across conditions, the pride expression was again significantly more likely to be identified as authentic pride (64%) than hubristic pride (36%), pb.05, based on the binomial test (with chance set at 50%). There was no main effect of source Congruence, F(1, 72) 1.87, ns, and, though there was a marginal effect of objective Attribution, F(1, 72) 3.07, p.08, this was qualified by a source Congruence Objective Attribution interaction, F(1, 72) 4.41, pb.05. As is shown in Figure 3, Figure 3. Frequency of authentic pride, rather than hubristic pride, judgements, as a function of objective attribution information (effort vs. ability) and whether this information was congruent with the target s attribution, Study 2. N 81. *pb.05. COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0) 7

9 TRACY AND PREHN this interaction suggests that when effort was the actual cause of success, participants tended to judge targets pride as authentic, regardless of targets own attributions (Ms 78% and 70% for congruent and incongruent target attributions, respectively). However, when ability was the actual cause, judgements depended on the target s attribution, such that targets who modestly attributed their success to effort were largely viewed as showing authentic pride (74%), whereas those who made an ability attribution*in agreement with the actual attribution*were more frequently judged as hubristic (63%), t(36) 2.39, pb.05. These findings confirm those of Study 1 in demonstrating that observers use both objective attribution information and targets own attributions when judging targets pride expressions. They also indicate that participants generally avoid making hubristic pride judgements unless it is clear that the proud target is arrogant and there is no mitigating evidence to suggest that he/ she might be a hard-working individual who would benefit the group. In other words, when there was any reason to judge expressions as authentic pride*either because targets seemed modest or because participants knew that success was actually due to targets effort*participants tend to make an authentic pride judgement. GENERAL DISCUSSION The present research provides the first evidence that observers can differentiate authentic and hubristic pride from a single nonverbal pride expression when additional contextual information is available. In Study 1, pride expressions shown by individuals who arrogantly attributed their own success to their ability were relatively more likely to be judged as hubristic, whereas expressions of those who more modestly attributed their success to effort were judged as authentic. This finding fits well with previous research demonstrating the importance of the ability versus effort attribution distinction (i.e., internal, stable, and uncontrollable, vs. internal, unstable, and controllable) in determining whether hubristic or authentic pride is experienced in response to success (Tracy & Robins, 2007a). It is also consistent with the expectation that perceptions of arrogance would lead to judgements of hubristic pride and dominance. However, this attribution distinction (ability vs. effort) had no effect on pride judgements in Study 1 when attribution information came from a more objective source, suggesting that observers are generally inclined to view successful proud targets as displaying authentic pride, as long they are actually responsible for their success (either through effort or ability) and do not seem arrogant. Results from Study 2 both support and complicate this conclusion. Here, targets own attributions had the same effect as in Study 1* with ability leading to hubristic pride and effort leading to authentic pride*but only when these attributions converged with the actual cause of the success. When targets and objective-source information diverged, participants showed a bias toward making authentic pride judgements, even in cases where targets should have appeared arrogant (attributing success to ability when it was actually due to effort). It makes sense that observers would judge an expression as authentic pride when it occurs in response to success that is due to ability but attributed by the target to effort, given that individuals with stable abilities who demonstrate modesty would make prestigious leaders, as they possess valuable skills and are likely to share them. In contrast, it is somewhat surprising that observers make authentic-pride judgements for targets who arrogantly attribute their own effort-based success to ability, given that this combination suggests over-claiming, and should be perceived as arrogant. However, it may be adaptive for observers to assume authentic pride in the absence of evidence of both ability as the actual cause of the success and arrogance on the part of the target. If success is due to effort and the target appears arrogant, he/she may still be a successful, hard-working group member, making it plausible that he/she will contribute to the group, and deserves respect rather than fear. This is consistent with Henrich and Gil-White s (2001) argument that prestigious 8 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0)

10 PRIDE IN CONTEXT leaders can convey some level of arrogance yet maintain prestige if they are of great enough value to the group. It is also possible that such individuals are viewed as showing both authentic and hubristic pride, consistent with the finding from Study 1 that when objective information is not available and targets make an arrogant attribution, observers are roughly evenly split in their authentic/hubristic pride judgements. Indeed, individuals who are hard workers yet arrogant may aptly be perceived as both prestigious and dominant, and may deserve both respect and fear. Future studies should further probe this possibility, examining contextual indicators that would directly promote judgements of both pride facets. Implications The present findings have several theoretical and practical implications for our understanding of the distinction between authentic and hubristic pride. They also add to a small literature suggesting that, in certain cases, contextual information can influence emotion recognition and emotion-based judgements (Aviezer et al., 2008; Carroll & Russell, 1996; Masuda et al., 2008). Although a small set of emotion expressions, including pride, are reliably and cross-culturally recognised in absence of any surrounding context (Ekman, 2003; Tracy & Robins, 2008a), there are cases where contextual information improves or changes judgements, and several studies have specified moderating factors that influence the likelihood of this occurring (Aviezer et al., 2008; Masuda et al., 2008). The determination of whether a given pride expression, conveys authentic or hubristic pride appears to be one such context-dependent decision. In light of this finding, there may be other facets of emotions that differ in subtle ways, but are associated with the same nonverbal expression, that might be distinguished when additional information is available. For example, previous research suggests that shame is associated with a distinct nonverbal expression, but guilt, another negatively valenced self-conscious emotion, is not (Haidt & Keltner, 1999). These two emotions are associated with divergent personality correlates, promote distinct behaviours and social consequences, serve distinct social functions, and are elicited by distinct causal attributions, which parallel those that distinguish between authentic and hubristic pride (Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tracy & Robins, 2006; Weiner, 1986). Thus, future research should probe whether the shame display tends to signal guilt, instead of shame, when certain contextual information is added. The present findings also have implications for the evolutionary origins of the two facets of pride; they are consistent with the view that while pride, in general, evolved to facilitate the attainment of social status, the two facets may have evolved somewhat separately to facilitate the attainment of prestige and dominance, respectively. The present research suggests that judgements of the two facets may be closely tied to the fitness benefits associated with perceiving that a successful individual merits prestige versus dominance. Previous research has shown that the decontextualised pride expression is rapidly and automatically recognised as pride and associated with high status (Shariff & Tracy, 2009; Tracy & Robins, 2008b), but, even when conscious deliberation is possible, not reliably identified as one facet of pride or the other (Tracy & Robins, 2007b). The present research clarifies these findings by demonstrating that when contextual information is available, and deliberated processing possible, distinctions are made between the two facets, and these more precise judgements may promote more precise associations with dominance or prestige, rather than generalised high status. One important future direction is to examine whether these subsequent, status-oriented judgements are, in fact, made on the basis of pride expressions combined with appropriate contextual knowledge. That is, do perceptions of targets prestige versus dominance cohere with perceptions of authentic versus hubristic pride? At a more pragmatic level, these findings have implications for the way individuals regulate their emotions and emotion expressions in response to success. Individuals who experience a public success face a social quandary*they are likely motivated to advertise their success and thereby boost their COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0) 9

11 TRACY AND PREHN social status, but also to minimise negative social appraisals that come with perceptions of arrogance and dominance. The present research suggests that while pride nonverbal displays in response to success are acceptable and may be adaptive, they need to be accompanied by modest attributions to effort, or objective information that the success was due to effort, in order to minimise judgements of hubristic pride. Limitations and conclusion The major limitation of the present research was its reliance on somewhat artificial manipulations of context cues and expressions. Although this methodology builds on a large body of research relying on static photos of emotion expressions, future studies are needed to examine the discrimination of authentic and hubristic pride from expressions shown in non-experimental settings; for example, how are spontaneously displayed pride expressions in real-world contexts perceived? In sum, the present findings indicate the importance of contextual knowledge in discriminating authentic from hubristic pride, and, more broadly, the importance of considering interactions among contextual knowledge and the source of this knowledge in research on the recognition and social communication of emotion expressions. REFERENCES Manuscript received 21 September 2010 Revised manuscript received 24 November 2010 Manuscript accepted 22 January 2011 First published online day Month year Aviezer, H., Hassin, R. R., Ryan, J., Grady, C., Susskind, J., Anderson, A., et al. (2008). Angry, disgusted, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science, 19, Carroll, J. M., & Russell, J. A. (1996). Do facial expressions signal specific emotions? Judging emotion from the face in context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed. New York, NY: Times Books. Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2008). Social functions of emotions. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), The handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp ). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Haidt, J., & Keltner, D. (1999). Culture and facial expression: Open-ended methods find more expressions and a gradient of recognition. Cognition and Emotion, 13, Hareli, S., Weiner, B., & Yee, J. (2006). Honesty doesn t always pay: The role of honesty of accounts for success made in an educational setting in inferences of modesty and arrogance. Social Psychology of Education, 9, Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.) Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp ). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lewis, M., Alessandri, S. M., & Sullivan, M. W. (1992). Differences in shame and pride as a function of children s gender and task difficulty. Child Development, 63, Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S., & Van de Veerdonk, E. (2008). Placing the face in context: Cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 5, Shariff, A. F., & Tracy, J. L. (2009). Knowing who s boss: Implicit perceptions of status from the nonverbal expression of pride. Emotion, 9, Tangney, J., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., & Gramzow, R. (1989). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. Tiedens, L., Ellsworth, P. C., & Mesquita, B. (2000). Sentimental stereotypes: Emotional expectations for 10 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0)

12 PRIDE IN CONTEXT high- and low-status group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J., Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. (2009). Authentic and hubristic pride: The affective core of self-esteem and narcissism. Self and Identity, 8, Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous display of pride and shame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15, Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007a). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007b). The prototypical pride expression: Development of a nonverbal behavioral coding system. Emotion, 7, Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2008a). The nonverbal expression of pride: Evidence for cross-cultural recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2008b). The automaticity of emotion recognition. Emotion, 7, Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Schriber, R. A. (2009). Development of a FACS-verified set of basic and self-conscious emotion expressions. Emotion, 9, Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., & Cheng, J. T. (2010). A naturalist s view of pride. Emotion Review, 2, Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., Zhao, W., & Henrich, J. (2011). Cross-cultural evidence that the pride expression is a universal automatic status signal. Manuscript under review. Weiner, B. (1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp ). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Williams, L., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Pride: Adaptive social emotion or seventh sin? Psychological Science, 20, COGNITION AND EMOTION, 0000, 00 (0) 11